章5 重新配置 Redistribution

除了“物的议会”有共鸣点，其他部分让我觉得自己是zz。
英文版参考  https://book.douban.com/subject/1850952/ 
5.1不可能的现代化The Impossible Modernization
Conclusion：the question of the nonmodern world.
现代化的明确目标是，成功区分外在自然定律和社会习俗。即，The past was a barbarian medley; the future, a civilizing distinction.现代人相信，不远的未来，他们就可以消除野蛮，获得经济理性、科学真相、技术效率。By increasingly terrifying revolutions, they have been able to tear themselves away from that past. 
However, this claim is selfcontradictory.由于现代宪章藉由否定混种物的存在而造成混种物的大量繁殖，现代人本身就要为混种物繁殖负责，那么，我们最终如何带来科学与社会的纯化呢？人们原先认为国家、科学和技术内永久持续的革命终究可以借由把混种物纳入社会或自然范畴中，而将他们吸收、纯化和文明化。但是社会主义和自然主义的双重失败， 使得纯化工作益发不可能并使得矛盾日益明显。我们已经没有革命可以持续推进航行了。帝国主义的暴力至少提供了未来，而现代的征服者既与过去永远隔断，也与未来决裂了。
Postmodernism is a symptom of the contradiction of modernism, but it is unable to diagnose this contradiction because it shares the same upper half of the Constitution - the sciences and the technologies are extrahuman - but it no longer shares the cause of the Constitution's strength and greatness - the proliferation of quasi-objects and the multiplication of intermediaries between humans and nonhumans allowed by the absolute distinction between humans and nonhumans.
不过，只要我们对称地将纯化工作和中介工作纳入考量，要诊断病症并不难。问题从不在于将自然定律与社会规约全然分开，而总在于混合某种特定型态的非人与某种特定型态的人，借此建构出集体，并不断扩大规模，萃取出波以耳式的客体和霍布斯式的主体。
The Constitution allows hybrids to proliferate because it refuses to conceptualize them as such, then it remains effective only so long as it denies their existence. Now, if the fruitful contradiction between the two parts - the official work of purification and the unofficial work of mediation - becomes clearly visible, won't the Constitution cease to be effective？Won't modernization become impossible？Are we going to become - or go back to being -premodern？Do we have to resign ourselves to becoming antimodern？For lack of any better option, are we going to have to continue to be modern, but without conviction, in the twilight zone of the postmods？
宪章容许混种物繁殖是因为宪章拒绝将之概念化，那么它只要否认混种物的存在就可以持续有效地运转。如果官方的纯化工作与非官方的中介工作，这两部门间富有成效的矛盾变得清楚可见，宪章会不会停止作用？现代化会不会成为不可能？我们会不会变成、或者回到前现代人？我们要听任自己成为反现代人吗？我们是否得因为缺乏更好的选项，只能继续当现代人，但又由于少了信念，只能徘徊在后现代人的模糊地带里？
5.2期末测验Final Examinations
要回答以上的问题，我们首先要要理清各种立场以使得非现代与这些立场的最好特质都能够相容。我们要保 留现代人的什麽特质？都保留，但要抛弃对现代宪章上半部无保留的信心，因为该宪章需要略做整修以涵盖其下半部。
The moderns' greatness stems from their proliferation of hybrids, their lengthening of a certain type of network, their acceleration of the production of traces, their multiplication of delegates, their groping production of relative universals. 他们的勇敢果决....创造出独立于社会之外的稳定客体、从课题中解放出社会自由等，这些都是要保留的特色。
另一方面，we cannot retain the illusion that moderns have about themselves and want to generalize to everyone.他们是理性的、有效的、客观的、普遍的、批判的.....他们与自身过去割离...与自然脱离，他们受困于事物与符号、事实与价值的绝对二分之间。
由于外在的大区分，西方人觉得自己已经脱离前现代。而对称的人类学已经重新配置大区分了。既然我们跟前现代人不再有天涯之隔，我们也就必须挑选出他们的特质。我们要保留他们最好的特性，尤其是不区分自然与社会，思考自然和社会的混种物，以及事物与符号的混种物，他们也有各种能力想象过去与未来，而不只是以进步与衰颓来思考。而不应该留存的特性包括：对集体的大小规模强加的限制、借领土疆域固守于局部地方、寻找代罪羔羊的过程、种族中心主义，以及持续地不区别各种自然与各种社会。
但是，这又怎么能一方面排斥前现代人对自然和社会的持续混同，另一方面又放弃现代人对于自然与社会的绝对二分呢？如果混种物现象，又怎能维持其规模，并持续探测、增生它们呢？
Yet this is precisely the amalgam I am looking for：to retain the production of a nature and of a society that allow changes in size through the creation of an external truth and a subject of law, but without neglecting the co-production of sciences and societies. 
然而，这正是我所要寻找的amalgam:自然与社会仍旧能透过创造出外在的真理与法律主体，调整其规模大小，但同时我们又不会忽略掉自然与社会一同生产出来的过程。
The amalgam consists in using the premodern categories to conceptualize the hybrids, while retaining the moderns, final outcome of the work of purification - that is, an external Nature distinct from subjects. I want to keep following the gradient that leads from unstable existences to stabilized essences - and vice versa.
To maintain all the advantages of the moderns dualism without its disadvantages - the clandestineness of the quasi-objects. To keep all the advantages of the premoderns' monism without tolerating its limits - the restriction of size through the lasting confusion of knowledge and power.
我想要保存现代人二元论的所有优点，又免除其弊—亦即类客体的神秘性；并维系前现代人一元论的优点，又免于承受其弊—也就是对知识与权力的持续混淆所导致的规模变化的限制。
只要我们将宪章的下层部分加入上层部分，很多后现代主义的直观就能被证明为正确的。例如，我们能保存解构(deconstruction) ——因为它不再有对立面，它就转而成建构主义，而不再与自我毁灭挂钩。我们可以保留解构论者对于自然化的否定——因为自然本身已不再自然，否定自然化就不会使我们远离科学，相反地，却让我们更接近行动中的科学。 
Take away from the postmoderns their illusions about the moderns, and their vices become virtues — nonmodern virtues!
只要摒除后现代人对现代人的幻觉，那麽他们的缺点也就成为优点——非现代的优点！
此处有一个留下的和据斥的表格！
这份检验的清单(balance sheet) 并不会太苛刻。
We can keep the Enlightenment without modernity, provided that we reintegrate the objects of the sciences and technologies into the Constitution, as quasi-objects among many others - objects whose genesis must no longer be clandestine, but must be followed through and through, from the hot events that spawned the objects to the progressive cool-down that transforms them into essences of Nature or Society.
只要我们能够将科学与技术的客体重新整合进宪章内，我们可以抛弃现代性，而仍保有启蒙运动。科学与技术的客体作为类客体的一种，其来源必须不再神秘。我们必须彻底追踪这些类客体，从孕育它们的炽热事件开始，追踪它们逐步转化成自然或社会的本质的冷却过程。
我们必要要草拟出某个宪章，正式认可这个运转过程。因为，old-style modernization can no longer absorb either other peoples or Nature.For its own good, the modern world can no longer extend itself without becoming once again what it has never ceased to be in practice - that is, a nonmodern world like all the others.
Modern temporality gave the impression of continuous acceleration by relegating ever-larger masses of humans and nonhumans together to the void of the past. 
The political task starts up again, at a new cost. It has been necessary to modify the fabric of our collectives from top to bottom in order to absorb the citizen of the eighteenth century and the worker of the nineteenth. 
We shall have to transform ourselves just as thoroughly in order to make room, today, for the nonhumans created by science and technology.
5.3重分配过的人文主义 Humanism Redistributed
修改宪章之前，需要重新安顿人的位置，需要将构成人类的另一部分，即事物的部分，归还给人类。So long as humanism is constructed through contrast with the object that has been abandoned to epistemology, neither the human nor the nonhuman can be understood.
Where are we to situate the human? A historical succession of quasiobjects, quasi-subjects, it is impossible to define the human by an essence.
我们要把人类安顿在哪里？类客体、类主体在历史中衍续着，我们不可能用某种本质来定义人。人没有稳定的形式，但也不会因此毫无形式。人与非人不是宪章上对立的两个极点，人是中介物甚至是两极点的介面。揭露人的中介性质，则人自会有其形式。
我们有必要讨论何谓“同形”（(morphism），它位于各种形式的交会处：技术形 (technomorphisms )、动物形(zoomorphisms )、自然形 (phusimorphisms )、观念形(ideomorphisms )、神形 (theomorphisms )、社会形 (sociomorphisms )、心理形 (psychomorphisms )交汇之处。这些形式的结盟和交易拼在一起，定义了人(anthropos)。人愈是接近此配置， 就愈具有人性。离开愈远，就愈能以多重形式出现，而使得它的人性很快变得无法辨识，即使它还具有个人或自我的模样。
By seeking to isolate its form from those it churns together, one does not defend humanism, one loses it.若试图从人搅拌的熔炉中抽离出人的形式，我们不仅无法捍卫人文主义，相反地，我们会失去它。
Where does the threat come from? From those who seek to reduce it to an essence and who - by scorning things, objects, machines and the social, by cutting off all delegations and senders - make humanism a fragile and precious thing at risk of being overwhelmed by Nature, Society, or God.
人的威胁究竟从何而来？威胁就来自那些家伙，他们试图将人化约为本质，还藉由嘲讽事物、客体、机械和社会并切断所有代表和发报器，将人文主义变成脆弱而珍贵的东西，面临着被自然、社会或上帝淹没的风险。
Modern humanists are reductionist because they seek to attribute action to a small number of powers, leaving the rest of the world with nothing but simple mute forces. It is true that by redistributing the action among all these mediators, we lose the reduced form of humanity, but we gain another form, which has to be called irreducible. 
现代的人文主义者是化约主义者，因为他们试图将行动归因于少数的掌权者，而世界的其他部分，只剩沉默的力量。我们如果将行动配给所有的中介物，人的化约形式确实会丧失，但是我们会获得他种形式，吾人可称之为不 可化约的(irreducible )形式。
The human is in the delegation itself, in the pass, in the sending, in the continuous exchange of forms. Of course it is not a thing, but things are not things either.
人类就存在于委托本身，在于传输中，在于送达中，在于形式持续的交换中。
Humanism can maintain itself only by sharing itself with all these mandatees. Human nature is the set of its delegates and its representatives, its figures and its messengers. That symmetrical universal is worth at least as much as the moderns' doubly asymmetrical one. This new position, shifted in relation to the subject/society position, now needs to be underwritten by an amended Constitution.
人文主义只有与所有被委任者分享，才能维持其自身。人的本性(human nature)是其委任者及其代表者的集合，是其象象征人物及其使者的集合。这个对称的共相(universal)至少跟现代双重不对称的共相，一样具有价値。这个根据主体/社会的位置而更动的新位置，现在需要由新修订的宪章来背书。
5.4非现代宪章The Nonmodern Constitution
要勾勒出非现代宪章的梗概，只需考虑现代宪章忽略的部分，并挑选出我们希望保留的保证。我们希望能提供代表给类客体。为此，必须剔除现代宪政确立的分权原则这项保障。这项保证是我们不能分析类客体的连续性。Nature and Society are not two distinct poles, but one and the same production of successive states of societies-natures, of collectives. 因此，新宪章的第一项保证，就是类客体、半类主体的非区隔性（nonseparability）。The first guarantee of our new draft thus becomes the nonseparability of quasi-objects, quasi-subjects. 
However, we do not wish to become premoderns all over again. Now we seek to keep the moderns' major innovation： the separability of a nature that no one has constructed - transcendence - and the freedom of manoeuvre of a society that is of our own making - immanence. Nevertheless, we do not seek to inherit the clandestineness of the inverse mechanism that makes it possible to construct Nature - immanence 一 and to stabilize Society durably — transcendence.
然而，我们并不希望再次成为现代人。我们想保留的是现代人的主要发明：我们可以区隔开某个不由人所建构的自然（此即自然具有的超越性），也可以自由地操作我们自己打造的社会 （此即社会具有的内在性）。然而对于反向的机制，即我们可以建构自然（此即自然的内在性），并且使社会长久稳固 （此即社会的超越性），我们不打算继续加以隐瞒。
我们可以保留旧有宪章的前两大保证，放弃第三项保证。
Nature's transcendence, its objectivity, and Society's immanence, its subjectivity, stem from the work of mediation without depending on their separation, contrary to what the Constitution of the moderns claims. 自然的超越性（客观性）和社会的内在性（主观性），其实源自中介工作，而不是如现代宪章所宣称的源自自然和社会的分离。
The moderns were not mistaken in seeking objective nonhumans and free societies. They were mistaken only in their certainty that that double production required an absolute distinction between the two terms and the continual repression of the work of mediation.
现代人错不在于追寻客观的非人和自由的社会，现代人错在过于相信我们若要生产出自然与社会，必须完全区分开两者，并且要持续压抑中介工作。
现代的宪章
第一项保证：Nature is transcendent but mobilizable (immanent).自然是超越的，但自然也是可动员的。（内在的）
第二项保证:Society is immanent but it infinitely surpasses us (transcendent)社会是内在的，但社会永远凌驾于我们。（超越的）
第三项保证：Nature and Society are totally distinct, and the work of purification bears no relation to the work of mediation.自然与社会二者全然有别。而纯化的工作与中介的工作毫无关系。
第四项保证：the crossed-out God is totally absent but ensures arbitration between the two branches of government.被割掉的上帝完全缺席，但又确保两政府部门间的仲裁。
非现代的宪章
第一项保证：nonseparability of the common production of societies and natures.各种社会与自然是一同产生出来而无法区隔开的。
第二项保证：continuous following of the production of Nature, which is objective, and the production of Society, which is free. In the last analysis, there is indeed a transcendence of Nature and an immanence of Society, but the two are not separated.持续地追踪客观的自然与自由的社会二者的生产过程。到底，的确有自然的超越性与社会的内在性，但二者并不区隔开来。
第三项保证：freedom is redefined as a capacity to sort the combinations of hybrids that no longer depend on a homogeneous temporal flow.自由被重新定义为一种能力，借此能力，当混种物不在依赖同质的时间流，我们还能分类各种混种物的结合。
第四项保证：the production of hybrids, by becoming explicit and collective^ becomes the object of an enlarged democracy that regulates or slows down its cadence.当混种物的生产过程变得明确而具有集体的性质，一种扩大了的民主就以此生产过程为目标，规范并且缓和其生产的节奏。
5.5物的议会The Parliament of Things
修订宪章时，我们还是相信科学，只不过不再无条件接受它们的客观性、真理、冷静、治外法权。我们保留的是它们的勇敢、热情、重构社会联系的疯狂能耐等。我们的确是启蒙运动的后裔，只是启蒙运动不对称的理性对我们而言太过狭隘。
波以耳的后裔定义了一个喑哑者的议会(实验室)，科学家只是媒介，都以事物的名义来说话。在此实验室外，霍布斯的后裔定义了共和国，在此国度，公民需要代表者，即主权者，一位简单的媒介和发言人，以公民的名义说话。但是就在此双重转换中，有关其品质的疑虑悄然发生。如果科学家所说的是他们自己的话而非事物的话时，该怎么办？如果主权者追求他自己的利益，该怎么办？在此，我们会丧失自然，落入人的争议。我们会陷入自然状态状态而彼此交战。
我们永远不会知道，科学家和代表究竟会翻译或背叛。在现代时期，这种双重的疑虑和此疑虑不可能终止的特性，将继续是批判者赖以维生的养分。现代主义之所以 是现代主义，就在于它选择这样了的安排，然而却对这两种型态的代表一直都存疑。
Epistemo- logists wondered about scientific realism and the faithfulness of science to things； political scientists wondered about the representative system and the relative faithfulness of elected officials and spokespersons. All had in common a hatred of intermediaries and a desire for an immediate world, emptied of its mediators. All thought that this was the price of faithful representation, without ever understanding that the solution to their problem lay in the other branch of government.
认识论者怀疑科学实在论(scientific realism)和 、科学是否能忠实反映事物；政治学家怀疑代议制，以及选 任的官员和发言人的相对忠诚度。这些怀疑者有一个共同点：他们都憎恶媒介物，渴望没有媒介物的立即 (immediate)世界。这些怀疑者都认为，这是为了忠实再现必得付出的代价，但他们却不曾了解，问题的解答就躺在政府的另一部门内。
再现的问题不是两个，而是只有一个。政府并没有两大部门，而只有一个。科学家表面上看来是背叛了外部实在(external reality)，但其实只是因为他们同时在建构他们的社会与自然。主权者表面上看起来是背叛了他的国民，其实只是因为他正将其人民和难以数计、使利维坦屹立不摇的非人，搅和在一起。对科学再现的怀疑，只是源于一种想法：若无社会的污染，自然立即就会显现。有些人就这麽说：「消除了社会因素，您最后会获得忠实的再现 」另还有些人这么宣称：「消除了客体，您最后会获得忠实的再现。」 这整个辩论都是因为现代宪章强制执行分权而引起的。
我们再来讨论对于两大再现及其代表忠诚度的双重疑虑，就该定义何谓「物的议会」(Parliament of Things )。在它的范围内，社群的连续性(the continuity of the community )重新组合起来了。不仅不再有昭然若揭的真理(naked truths )，也不再有赤裸裸的公民（naked citizens）。整个范围都是中介物的空间。物必须拥有其代表，以它们为核心，物的终于召开。